- From: Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:55:44 +0100
- To: "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: "tag" <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <C9969FE0.920B%daniel.appelquist@vodafone.com>
Good stuff ¡© I¡¯m happy to do this. Agree very much on the importance of a quality meeting record BTW. Dan On 04/03/2011 13:23, "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: > I would add before the line "<noah> referent" an explanation that Noah > had called a poll asking for everyone's preference of 'meaning' vs. > 'referent'. > > I would tend to edit out lines like "<noah> RESOLUTIO: ..." where a > correction immediately follows. A similar case is > > <noah> RESOLUTION: to change tile of issue-57 to Mechanisms for > obtaining information about the intended > <noah> meaning of a given URI > <noah> meaning of a given URI and add para of description per jonathans email > > which is fixed right away... don't think this adds any value to the > record, and detracts a bit. If someone really cares they can look at > the IRC log. > > I'll make these changes if you like. > > Thanks > -Jonathan > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group > <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com> wrote: >> > Hi all ¡© please find draft minutes from 03-03 call here: >> > >> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/03-minutes.html >> > >> > Also, text version pasted below. Please let me know if there should be any >> > revisions. >> > >> > Dan >> > >> > --- >> > ? [1]W3C >> > >> > ? ? ?[1] http://www.w3.org/ >> > >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? - DRAFT - >> > >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?TAG telcon >> > >> > 03 Mar 2011 >> > >> > ? [2]Agenda >> > >> > ? ? ?[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/03-agenda.html >> > >> > ? See also: [3]IRC log >> > >> > ? ? ?[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/03-tagmem-irc >> > >> > Attendees >> > >> > ? Present >> > ? ? ? ? ?Larry Masinter, Jonathan Rees, Peter Linss, Noah Mendelsohn, >> > ? ? ? ? ?Henry S. Thompson, Yves Lafon, Daniel Appelquist, John Kemp >> > >> > ? Regrets >> > >> > ? Chair >> > ? ? ? ? ?Noah Mendelsohn >> > >> > ? Scribe >> > ? ? ? ? ?Henry S. Thompson >> > ? ? ? ? ?Daniel Appelquist >> > >> > Contents >> > >> > ? ? * [4]Topics >> > ? ? ? ? 1. [5]IAB Panel >> > ? ? ? ? 2. [6]interaction story for web applications >> > ? ? ? ? 3. [7]303 related issues. >> > ? ? * [8]Summary of Action Items >> > ? ? _________________________________________________________ >> > >> > ? <johnk> hmmm, I'm having trouble getting into the call... >> > >> > ? <ht> scribe: Henry S. Thompson >> > >> > ? Peter: Regrets for next week >> > >> > ? <johnk> johnk >> > >> > ? <Yves> I read the first two days, and thought they were OK. >> > >> > ? <jar_> have scanned the f2f minutes (for lines with my own initials >> > ? and a bit more) >> > >> > ? Noah: f2f minutes read by anyone? >> > >> > ? Jonathan: Scanned, but not read in detail >> > >> > ? <johnk> FWIW, I read the first day and thought it was OK >> > >> > ? Yves: Read first two days carefully, since I wasn't there, they were >> > ? fine >> > >> > ? <Larry> +1 approve minutes >> > >> > ? Noah: RESOLVED: Approve the 8--10 Feb f2f minutes >> > >> > ? <noah> PROPOSE: Approve minutes of 8-10 Feb 2011 >> > ? [9]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda >> > >> > ? ? ?[9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda >> > >> > ? <noah> RESOLUTIO: Minutes of 8-10 Feb 2011 >> > ? [10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda are approved >> > >> > ? ? [10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda >> > >> > ? <noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 8-10 Feb 2011 >> > ? [11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda are approved >> > >> > ? ? [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda >> > >> > ? Noah: Some concerns about the initial draft, please try harder >> > ? ... Minutes of 24 Feb? >> > >> > ? <noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 24 Feb 2011 >> > ? [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/24-minutes are approved >> > >> > ? ? [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/24-minutes >> > >> > ? Peter: I reviewed a bit >> > >> > ? Noah: John is coming back for this call for his work item. >> > ? ... Put one thing ahead - IAB panel. >> > ? ... Also - at f2f Dan suggested we talk about offline web >> > ? application packaging. >> > ? ... Also we should discuss 303 redirections. >> > >> > IAB Panel >> > >> > ? Noah: anything you'd like to spend time on, Henry? >> > >> > ? Henry: Not at this time. >> > >> > ? Noah: Anyone else? >> > >> > ? Larry: Relationship between scalability and registries - I had some >> > ? thoughts. >> > ? ... We had this issue and discussion on role of registries and IANA. >> > ? ... We had a discussion on MIME types. >> > ? ... Architectural issue is preference in webarch for using URIs >> > ? rather than registered values (DTD style). >> > >> > ? <noah> Good point, Larry >> > >> > ? <jar_> jar +1 larry saying: Scalability of URI access relates to the >> > ? registry question. >> > >> > ? <Larry> I was trying to talk about a somewhat vague thought >> > ? connecting work on registries to work on scalability >> > >> > ? <noah> What I heard was: if you're going to encourage people to use >> > ? URIs for things that otherwise would have been in registries, you >> > ? tempt them to make accesses to those URIs, and we've seen that as a >> > ? source of scalability problems. >> > >> > ? <Larry> if the web architecture prefers using URI-assignment rather >> > ? than registry allocation by IANA.... >> > >> > ? <jar_> E.g. putting the registries and schemas in URI space under >> > ? urn: instead of http: might somehow help with scalability question. >> > ? Yes? >> > >> > ? Larry: In so far as this talk at IETF is to start some discussions >> > ? on web architecture and internet architecture: we can have topics we >> > ? want to talk about even if we don't have answers. >> > >> > ? <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say it's only one bit of the scalability >> > ? problem. >> > >> > ? <jar_> maybe. >> > >> > ? <Larry> well, if the URI used was "data:", there wouldn't have been >> > ? a scalability issue >> > >> > ? Noah: I see the scalability problem as a fundamental issue for the >> > ? web. This type of problem is one concern but not the only one that >> > ? might arise. >> > >> > ? <Larry> early discussions were about unexpected flash crowds, where >> > ? some TV commentator says "look up this cool picture at NASA" and >> > ? suddenly NASA's web space is cut down >> > >> > ? Noah: For example, the home page for nytimes and cnn - these people >> > ? aren't surprised about heavy access, but you could imaging lots of >> > ? different resources that might have the same scalability issues. >> > >> > ? <Larry> [13]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-centric_networking >> > >> > ? ? [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-centric_networking >> > >> > ? Noah: ... when you use URIs, there are scalability issues because >> > ? people do [dereference] them inappropriately. >> > >> > ? Larry: I am also worried about content-centric networking... would >> > ? like to understand this better. >> > >> > ? <Yves> scalability issue depends also on cache infrastructures in >> > ? the network >> > >> > ? MN: [it might be premature to discuss it at the IETF meeting] >> > >> > ? <Zakim> ht, you wanted to add that if I put in a slide on this, I >> > ? should add two lines about the registry<->URI connection in e.g. >> > ? XPointer scheme names >> > >> > ? Henry: I think it's important to realise that there are a number of >> > ? cases in which the boundaries between registries and URIs have been >> > ? blurred. >> > ? ... It's worth mentioning : we do have a very intentional hybrid >> > ? system - the xpointer registry - a database backed registry which >> > ? results in a URI being served for everything in the registry. >> > >> > ? Larry: Can you give an overview for the panel? >> > >> > ? Henry: Yes I think so. >> > >> > ? Noah: Moving on to John's topic. >> > >> > ? ACTION-355? >> > >> > ? <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which >> > ? AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web >> > ? Applications -- due 2011-02-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW >> > >> > ? <trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355 >> > >> > ? ? [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355 >> > >> > interaction story for web applications >> > >> > ? Noah: To frame: identification (URIs), interaction (protocols), ... >> > ? ... when we started to look at extending work on web arch to >> > ? application (as opposed to docuemnts) and we started to see >> > ? interactions which are not simple request-response, John undertook >> > ? this issue to frame the interaction issues for webapps. >> > >> > ? <noah> ACTION-355? >> > >> > ? <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which >> > ? AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web >> > ? Applications -- due 2011-02-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW >> > >> > ? <trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355 >> > >> > ? ? [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355 >> > >> > ? <johnk> >> > ? [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html >> > >> > ? ? [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html >> > >> > ? John: I did an investigation of awww. What I found I sent in an >> > ? email to the TAG list. >> > >> > ? <noah> Email: >> > ? [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0058.html >> > >> > ? ? [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0058.html >> > >> > ? John: the way the interaction model is currently described is over >> > ? http. >> > >> > ? <noah> Links to document: >> > ? [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html >> > >> > ? ? [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html >> > >> > ? John: some of the things I mentioned were client-side manipulation >> > ? and generation of URIs... >> > ? ... what is the relationship between a server-side application and >> > ? the client-side javascript that's running and what enables the >> > ? client-side script to know it can construct a URI reliably? >> > ? ... comet, websocket, ajax-based polling: information rendered to >> > ? the user is different than what was downloaded initially. >> > ? ... In the old model, you had to be running a server to expose a >> > ? resource on the web; now you have clients that are servers, also >> > ? exposing client resources (e.g. gps) exposed as web resources to >> > ? another entity. >> > ? ... multi-party security is an issue - multiple pieces of content >> > ? are mashed up to create a running application. >> > ? ... More recently I wrote some examples. >> > ? ... one is the use of websockets; another is the use of geo api to >> > ? expose the client's location to the document they've downloaded; >> > ? another is client-side URI generation. >> > >> > ? <noah> I think when we expose something like an accelerometer using >> > ? Javascript APIs as opposed to URIs, then it's best not to call that >> > ? a "Web resource". What we have are resources that are linkable >> > ? through the mechanisms of the Web, others (like the acceleromotere) >> > ? available only at the client, and others that are networked with >> > ? non-Web protocols. >> > >> > ? John: I think it would be useful to use these examples as a >> > ? framework to talk about [webapps architecture] >> > ? ... All of these things are dependent on an eventing based model >> > ? associated with javascript and a document object model that runs on >> > ? the client - different from http - so different from what is >> > ? document in awww. >> > >> > ? Noah: Open floor for discussion. >> > ? ... How deep and how broad is our investigation of webapps going to >> > ? be? >> > ? ... is this close to a TAG finding? >> > ? ... doesn't really draw conclusions yet. >> > ? ... do we want to carry forward with work based on this? >> > ? ... to elaborate some principles / best practices - terminology for >> > ? the abstractions and good practices. >> > >> > ? DKA+1 to us building on John's work. >> > >> > ? Larry: WebApps are [where it's at] >> > >> > ? <jar_> mnot: "Open Source is taking the place of Open Standards" >> > >> > ? Noah: Do we have one or two individuals who can work aggressively on >> > ? this - 5 to 10 hours a week to write and gain consensus - on this >> > ? topic? >> > >> > ? Larry: We have a motivation to work on this in terms of starting >> > ? some conversations ... at the IETF panel ... IETF has raised some >> > ? issues on webapps ... >> > >> > ? <jar_> noah would prefer to talk about who is doing the work, rather >> > ? than the work. >> > >> > ? Noah: We set ourselves a goal of writing a new section of webarch - >> > ? new story about interaction. If we're going to write something we >> > ? need to write it. >> > >> > ? Dan: I think we need to engage with a webapps community of practice >> > ? to work on this - worried about being able to do this. >> > >> > ? Noah: we should be challenging that community by asking some >> > ? questions [ / making some assertions]. >> > ? ... Webarch has good stuff like cool URIs don't change, etc.. >> > ? provides real advice. >> > ? ... we should get to that point. Where we can say : here's good >> > ? practice and here's bad - and here's useful terminology... >> > ? ... We should say something specific. >> > >> > ? Larry: In the general problem - where we have something to say >> > ? that's important but we don't have the resources - could we e.g. ask >> > ? the webapps working group what should happen to awww to make it more >> > ? relevant to them? >> > >> > ? Noah: Goal here is to update the TAG document. >> > ? ... I'm frustrated we can't find the time to do this. >> > >> > ? Larry: What if we publish this as a blog post, ask for suggestions >> > ? from the community? >> > >> > ? <johnk> I would not want to publish what I've already done as a blog >> > ? post >> > >> > ? Noah: Chapters suggest terminology, they have principles, good >> > ? practices notes... >> > >> > ? <jar_> What problem does web architecture solve? ... the answer >> > ? would tell us what to do in the apps space. >> > >> > ? <Larry> maybe we will get some feedback from IETF meeting on what we >> > ? need to do? >> > >> > ? Dan: I am happy to reach out the webapps chairs... am worried about >> > ? the impactfulness of this proposed document to the community we are >> > ? trying to influence. >> > >> > ? Noah: We committed to do some work in this space... >> > ? ... I think you [Dan] are saying the deliverable might be premature. >> > ? ... then I think we should stop telling the community we're going to >> > ? do comprehensive work on webapps. >> > >> > ? <jar_> Every journey begins with a single step. >> > >> > ? Noah: I am willing to back off on the notion that one of our big >> > ? deliverables is a comprehensive webapps architecture. >> > >> > ? Jonathan: I think the goal has been a good one -- in that we have >> > ? looked at topics [in this space]. >> > >> > ? Noah: if what we're doing is chaining from "major document" to >> > ? "umbrella theme which is influencing a number of point pieces of >> > ? work" then we should [be clear on that >> > ? ... ] >> > >> > ? <jar_> Has to do with the TAG status report, setting W3C mgmt >> > ? expectations. >> > >> > ? Jonathan: There's no crisis here - >> > ? ... the people who did AWWW felt like there was a real reason to do >> > ? it. >> > ? ... one thing we need here - we should try to figure out what are >> > ? the dangers - what are the bad things that might go wrong if we >> > ? don't publish this. >> > >> > ? Noah: My perception on webarch - the TAG has principles in its >> > ? charter; one of these is to document principles of web architecture. >> > ? Web apps architecture f[follows on from this]. When you read webarch >> > ? and then look at [web apps] [they don't fit together.] >> > ? ... We should document the web architecture as used today. >> > >> > ? Jonathan: I think it's not just a matter of responsibility and >> > ? charter - bad things can actually happen and we care about them. >> > >> > ? Henry: I don't want to lose this task. If I have time between now >> > ? and the end of my time on the TAG this will be the next thing up >> > ? because I think it's hugely important. >> > >> > ? [discussion on priorities] >> > >> > ? Noah: Propose we close ACTION-355 with thanks to John - then see >> > ? what else we can propose in the short term. >> > >> > ? <ht> ACTION: Noah to work with HST to identify a way forward wrt >> > ? interaction [recorded in >> > ? [19]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/03-tagmem-minutes.html#action01] >> > >> > ? ? [19] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/03-tagmem-minutes.html#action01 >> > >> > ? <trackbot> Created ACTION-536 - Work with HST to identify a way >> > ? forward wrt interaction [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-03-10]. >> > >> > ? <noah> ACTION-355? >> > >> > ? <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which >> > ? AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web >> > ? Applications -- due 2011-02-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW >> > >> > ? <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355 >> > >> > ? ? [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355 >> > >> > ? close ACTION-355 >> > >> > ? <trackbot> ACTION-355 Explore the degree to which AWWW and >> > ? associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications >> > ? closed >> > >> > ? <ht> action-536 due 2011-08-01 >> > >> > ? <trackbot> ACTION-536 Work with HST to identify a way forward wrt >> > ? interaction due date now 2011-08-01 >> > >> > ? Noah: Now - proposals on short-term work? >> > >> > ? John: Larry mentioned mark N's comments - related to this issue. >> > ? ... we could link these together.... >> > >> > ? <noah> ACTION Dan to reach out to Web apps chair to solicit help on >> > ? framing architecture (incluing terminology, good practice) relating >> > ? to interaction >> > >> > ? <trackbot> Created ACTION-537 - Reach out to Web apps chair to >> > ? solicit help on framing architecture (incluing terminology, good >> > ? practice) relating to interaction [on Daniel Appelquist - due >> > ? 2011-03-10]. >> > >> > ? <Larry> hmmm, s/web apps chair/web apps working group/ >> > >> > ? <jar_> larry email was sent feb 18... >> > >> > ? Noah: Anything else under this interaction topic? If not, let's move >> > ? on... >> > >> > ? <Yves> >> > ? [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html >> > >> > ? ? [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html >> > >> > ? Noah: Please put links to this in ACTION-355 and ACTION-356. >> > >> > ? <johnk> >> > ? [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html >> > >> > ? ? [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html >> > >> > ? <ht> +1 to JR's proposal to regroup under a renamed ISSUE-57 >> > >> > 303 related issues. >> > >> > ? <jar_> I proposed >> > ? [23]http://www.w3.org/mid/AANLkTik5oUpZLs6MVQ5QZEtjqVjLUDWWAo0yLFiXR >> > ? 9e0%2540mail.gmail.com >> > >> > ? ? [23] >> > >> http://www.w3.org/mid/AANLkTik5oUpZLs6MVQ5QZEtjqVjLUDWWAo0yLFiXR9e0%2540mail >> > .gmail.com >> > >> > ? <ht> +1 to JR's proposed new name for ISSUE-57 -- close enough for >> > ? government work >> > >> > ? Jonathan: I did a survey of URI meaning issues... Rather than >> > ? opening a new issue it might be better to use ISSUE-57. >> > ? ... if we just fix the title and amend it then it will serve >> > ? perfectly well. >> > ? ... I found one caution from Tim. >> > >> > ? <jar_> @f2f timbl: Let's not re-define issues under the same number, >> > ? that's fraud :-) >> > >> > ? Jonathan: but this isn't a redefinition - just a re-titling. >> > >> > ? Noah: Do you want to make a case for the scope / new title. >> > >> > ? Jonathan: The issue was opened up because of an email to the TAG >> > ? regarding 303's - that they weren't working and urging the TAG to >> > ? look at other ways to do the same thing. >> > >> > ? <noah> [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06 >> > >> > ? ? [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06 >> > >> > ? <noah> [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues#httpRange-14 >> > >> > ? ? [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues#httpRange-14 >> > >> > ? <noah> [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0273 >> > >> > ? ? [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0273 >> > >> > ? <noah> [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0092 >> > >> > ? ? [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0092 >> > >> > ? [some discussion on history of the issue] >> > >> > ? <noah> At their meeting in 16th July 2007 [$1\47] the TAG resolved >> > ? to create a new issue, HttpRedirections-57 as a response to a >> > ? community request >> > >> > ? <noah> [$1\47] >> > ? [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06 >> > >> > ? ? [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06 >> > >> > ? <noah> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 >> > >> > ? ? [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 >> > >> > ? <jar_> [30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0034 >> > >> > ? ? [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0034 >> > >> > ? <jar_> that's giovanni's email which i consider the heart of >> > ? issue-57 >> > >> > ? <Larry> I don't understand what we're talking about and why we're >> > ? taking meeting time to talk about it >> > >> > ? <Larry> maybe JAR and Noah can take this offline and come back with >> > ? one or two proposals for what to do? >> > >> > ? Jonathan: the way I think of this - issue-14 was closed with a >> > ? decision about how 200s are used - our alternative for those >> > ? troubled by this is 303. >> > ? ... years passed by ... >> > ? ... then people started saying the solution (using 303) doesn't >> > ? work. >> > ? ... that's a problem that never got fixed - that I'm trying to fix >> > ? this year. >> > ? ... hence issue-57. >> > >> > ? <noah> From issue-57 description: >> > >> > ? <noah> At the TAG F2F of 4 March 2009 >> > ? ([31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03), the TAG >> > ? agreed to "split Issue-57 into two issues as edited by NM, with one >> > ? abstention DanC". Issue 62 was opened immediately. Later issue 63 >> > ? was opened. >> > >> > ? ? [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03) >> > >> > ? <Larry> If people who are trying to deploy something don't like the >> > ? implementation consequences of a TAG finding.... it just shows to me >> > ? the risk of the TAG coming out with "findings" that propose >> > ? technology solutions, without the 'direct' participation of the >> > ? implementation community >> > >> > ? [discussion on whether or not issue-57 was superseded] >> > >> > ? <Larry> and this should be a topic of a working group, not the TAG >> > >> > ? <Larry> I have no problem with JAR changing issues to match his >> > ? understanding of the issue >> > >> > ? <jar_> larry: The TAG made a recommendation (little R) for 303, and >> > ? it didn't get review. >> > >> > ? <noah> I disagree...it didn't get formal AC review, but it got a ton >> > ? of community review (if not complete consensus) >> > >> > ? <jar_> larry: People said, we tried it and it didn't work for us... >> > ? therefore need a WG >> > >> > ? Larry: What should happen now is to tell people who are trying to >> > ? engineer solutions : you should form a working group. Because we >> > ? suggested a direction, but if it's not working then I don't think >> > ? the response should be we should go back and review them. The >> > ? response should be : Ok - the thing we recommended has performance >> > ? requirements, go and form a working group to come up with something >> > ? different. >> > >> > ? Noah: It could also be one of the existing semantic web working >> > ? groups... >> > ? ... the community has chosen not to invest before... >> > >> > ? Jonathan: Tim has said this is a TAG issue, not specific to RDF. >> > >> > ? Noah: Jonathan has made a concrete proposal - an update for issue-57 >> > ? and an agreement to use that issue to track our upcoming work on >> > ? this (which may not be very much). >> > ? ... going back to Jonathan's specific proposal, I am willing to say >> > ? "OK." >> > >> > ? <DKA>+1 sounds OK to me. >> > >> > ? <Larry> whether it's forming another working group or assigning it >> > ? to an existing one? >> > >> > ? <jar_> . change per proposal given here >> > ? [32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Mar/0000.html >> > >> > ? ? [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Mar/0000.html >> > >> > ? <Larry> note that "Community Groups" in W3C are intended to lower >> > ? the overhead of forming a working group >> > >> > ? <jar_> thanks larry. >> > >> > ? <noah> PROPOSAL: >> > >> > ? <noah> 1) Chamge issue-57 title to: At the TAG F2F of 4 March 2009 >> > ? ([33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03), the TAG >> > ? agreed to "split Issue-57 into two issues as edited by NM, with one >> > ? abstention DanC". Issue 62 was opened immediately. Later issue 63 >> > ? was opened. >> > >> > ? ? [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03) >> > >> > ? <noah> 2) Add a paragraph to the description per Jonathan's email: >> > >> > ? <noah> "On its 2011-dd-dd telcon [$1\47] the TAG noted that members >> > ? of >> > >> > ? <noah> the community (e.g. in [$1\47]) report that the performance >> > >> > ? <noah> characteristics and deployment complexity of using 303 >> > >> > ? <noah> redirects leave them feeling that they have little option but >> > >> > ? <noah> to use 200 responses for this purpose, at variance with the >> > >> > ? <noah> TAG's httpRange-14 resolution [$1\47]." >> > >> > ? <noah> PROPOSAL: >> > >> > ? <noah> 1) Chamge issue-57 title to: "Mechanisms for obtaining >> > ? information about the intended >> > >> > ? <noah> meaning of a given URI" >> > >> > ? <noah> Noodling on this: >> > >> > ? Noah: any others worried about use of word "meaning"? >> > >> > ? <noah> 1) Chamge issue-57 title to: "Mechanisms for obtaining >> > ? information about the referent of a URI" >> > >> > ? Larry: You can't ever determine the intended meaning - my worry is >> > ? the word "intended." >> > ? ... A design goal of URIs is to have uniformity of meaning. >> > >> > ? <Yves> I am for 'intended meaning', to avoid 'intended semantic' >> > >> > ? [debate on the meaning of meaning] >> > >> > ? <Larry> i don't like "intended" is that it begs the question of who >> > ? intends it >> > >> > ? <Larry> depends on what the meaning of 'is' is >> > >> > ? <Yves> who intends it... whoever minted the URI >> > >> > ? <Larry> issue-57? >> > >> > ? <trackbot> ISSUE-57 -- The use of HTTP Redirection -- open >> > >> > ? <trackbot> [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 >> > >> > ? ? [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 >> > >> > ? <Larry> >> > ? duri:2006:[35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 >> > >> > ? ? [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 >> > >> > ? Noah: who prefers meaning and who prefers referent >> > >> > ? <noah> referent >> > >> > ? <Larry> meaning >> > >> > ? <Yves> meaning >> > >> > ? <DKA> meaning >> > >> > ? <jar_> +1 meaning but not important enought to quibble about >> > >> > ? <Larry> actually, >> > ? tdb:2006:[36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 >> > >> > ? ? [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 >> > >> > ? <jar_> 'individual' >> > >> > ? <noah> RESOLUTION: to change tile of issue-57 to Mechanisms for >> > ? obtaining information about the intended >> > >> > ? <noah> meaning of a given URI >> > >> > ? <noah> meaning of a given URI and add para of description per >> > ? jonathans email >> > >> > ? <noah> RESOLUTION: Change title of ISSUE-57 to "Mechanisms for >> > ? obtaining information about the meaning of a given URI" and add >> > ? paragrph of description per Jonathan's email >> > >> > ? Noah: OK - thanks for your patience with this. Our next call next >> > ? week. Let's adjourn for now. >> > >> > ? <noah> Jonathan: please leave some tracks in the issue description >> > ? to point out when/why it was changed. >> > >> > Summary of Action Items >> > >> > ? [NEW] ACTION 356: [37]Noah to work with HST to identify a way >> > ? forward wrt interaction >> > >> > ? ? [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/536 >> > >> > ? [NEW] ACTION 357: [38]Dan to reach out to Web apps chair to solicit >> > ? help on framing architecture (incluing terminology, good practice) >> > ? relating to interaction >> > ? [End of minutes] >> > ? ? _________________________________________________________ >> > >> > ? ? [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/537 >> > >> > >> > ? ?Minutes formatted by David Booth's [39]scribe.perl version 1.135 >> > ? ?([40]CVS log) >> > ? ?$Date: 2011/03/03 23:23:31 $ >> > >> > ? ? [39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm >> > ? ? [40] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ >> > >> > >
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 13:56:28 UTC